- (1.) ONE Fakir Chandra Bhar, now deceased, was paid to have been the Karta of a Hindu undivided family, governed by the Dayabhaga School of law. For the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the said undivided Hindu family was assessed to income-tax. The taxes were not paid. After the death of Fakir Chandra Bhar, steps were taken for realisation of the tax, under the Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and three certificates for realisation of the taxes in arrears were filed before the Certificate Officer, District 24 Parganas. In the certificates, the certificate debtor was described as "sri Fakir Chandra Bhar, Karta of the H. U. F. M/s. Fakir Chandra Bhar and others. " After the filing of the certificate there were objections filed in each of the certificate cases, interalia, to the effect that Fakir Chandra Bhar having had died, on June 15, 1951, the certificate proceedings against a dead person should be treated as null and void. The Certificate Officer found that the undivided family consisted of Fakir Chandra Bhar and his brother Jaharlal Bhar and passed an order, on December 29, 1953, bringing on record the name of Jaharlal Bhar in place of Fakir Chand Bhar, deceased, as the Karta and calling upon him to pay up certificate debt. Much progress does not appear to have been made in the certificate cases after the name of Jaharlal Bhar was brought on the record.
(2.) THE said Jaharlal Bhar died on February 11, 1959. Thereupon on September 23, 1959, the heirs and legal representatives of both Fakir and Jahar were made the certificate-debtors in their capacity as members of the Hindu undivided family. Thereafter, fresh notices, in form 3, were served upon the said heirs and legal representatives. The petitioner, who is a son of Jaharlal, received such a notice on October 27, 1959.
(3.) ON July 18, 1961, the petitioner filed an application under section 37 of the Act, interalia, raising the following objections: - (a) the certificate was not enforceable because the joint family had split up ; (b) the substitution of the name of Jaharlal Bhar in the certificates in place of Fakir Chandra Bhar deceased was illegal and without jurisdiction. (c) the execution was barred by limitation. (d) the personal properties of the petitioner were not liable under the certificates. The Certificate Officer over-ruled the objections with the following observations:- "the assessee in the present case, as has been already stated, is the H. U. F. of which Dulal became a member after the death of his father Jaharlal Bhar. As a member of the H. U. F. Dulal is liable for the debts of the H. U. F. So his contention that he is not liable for the present demand is untenable. The ground of limitation urged by the CD is equally untenable. It is true that the petitioner along with his brothers was made a CD on 23. 9. 59 after the death of his father Jaharlal. The execution proceeding was pending when this inclusion took place. So article 182 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and there was nothing wrong in this inclusion as a CD on account of his being the son of the Head of the assessee-H. U. F. The petitioner inherited the assets of the H. U. F. and there is no reason why he should not be made liable for the debts of the H. U. F. ";